MovieChat Forums > The Imposter (2012) Discussion > This isn't a documentary

This isn't a documentary

posted 11 years ago by savaslikesmovies
18 replies | jump to latest

I don't know exactly what it is, but to say it's a documentary and have the criminal as the first person narrator is like making a rape documentary and having the rapist tell its side of the story, and to finish it off with "she was wearing slutty clothes so she wanted to me to rape her".

I feel sorry for the missing child, which, lets face it; probably dead. I feel sorry for the mother, daughter and the rest of the family to have such a thing happen to them, and I'm not specifically talking about them falling for his lies, but having wanted him back so much, was willing to welcome just about anything that walked into their lives, assuming it to be him.

The sister talks about being surprised to see Coka-Cola in Spain/Europe and it shows that they are clueless of the world, living in the bubble that America has created for them, they have no idea that people do such messed up, twisted things. Their type of evil is serial killers and gangsters.

The fact that this "documentary" has a 'Rotten Tomatoes' rating of "96%" while say for example "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is 65% with so much critical analysis of the movie, down to it's choice of frames per second, when it's a fun fantasy movie.. While this movie earns rewards is a JOKE to the industry. They're like snobs who play this game and have completely lost it, who now just eat on each other. Truth is, this is like 'Catch Me If You Can', but without an elegant story, oh and without Leonardo DiCaprio and Steven Spielberg directing (before anyone thinks it's level of film).

Oh I get it, it's just about the imposter, so we shouldn't get involved in where this kid can possibly be, where this step-dad, Jason was when the kid went missing. Why the FBI was so stupid to not personally visit Jason at the rehab without questioning him.

[–] bobbobbob123 11 years ago

I'm not convinced you actually watched this film. And if you did, whew... you're nutty.

[–] Yellowman88 11 years ago

this isn't a documentary per say but it's a non-fiction story told through a series of interviews. They need a word for these type of "documentary"

[–] ssseuth 11 years ago

Are there other types of documentary? Every documentary is a series of interviews.

[–] GordonGartrelle (1267) 3 years ago

I understand what is meant by this.

It's not a Ken Burns documentary, its more like a Thin Blue Line, a whimsical story telling.

[–] hizherz 7 years ago

Yeah, Savas is a nutjob.

[–] lalex81 11 years ago

I'm not sure if your problem is with the format of the film or the subject.

I don't see anything wrong with having the bad guy in the center of a documentary/film. It's been done thousands of times before and gives us an incredible insight into the mind and motivations of this people.

[–] purplefacedmonkey 11 years ago

I agree with what Bob said, I'm not entirely sure you watched this movie. At least not all of it. The last ten minutes or so show how completely insane The Imposter was. I actually think it was an interesting technique to have him narrate most of the story. If they had left his testament to the end, it would have been like every other documentary ever made. I liked how the ending made me question the amount of truth in what he had said.

Also, I find it odd that you say the sister was clueless to not realise that Coca-Cola is a global brand (implying that it's one of the most recognisable brands in the world) and yet, you spelled it wrong.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lolmail911 11 years ago

By the way, Fredric Bourdin only appeared in the archive footage. The man who appeared in all "in-your-face-interview" scenes was this ACTOR:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4774039/

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inigo-elza 9 years ago

have you watched the movie? the actor is the guy who playesthe scènes not the interview

[–] GreyCadillacs 11 years ago

But hearing Bourdin's side of things is crucial to the whole story. If we didn't have him, the film would go something like, "So here was this guy pretending to be the son, when he wasn't. I really couldn't tell you why he did it. But here's some guesses." This documentary was so much more engrossing knowing each side of the whole bizarre tale.

[–] PopSnot 11 years ago

It was a documentary.

It was a film that depicted a story using factual evidence/reports/interviews/etc.

It was a documentary.

Just because the narrator was a criminal, it doesn't take away from the fact that it was a documentary.

[–] StaunchWoman 11 years ago

The genre isn't changed because of whose opinion it is.

We've met before, haven't we?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]